A public service announcement to the Norwegians: Glorifying crime is legal

How hard can it be to comprehend the distinction between incitement and threats? Evidently, most journalists are too dense to grasp that incitement does not equal threats, even if you explain it to them repeatedly. While media coverage of a subject you are intimately familiar with is often amusingly inaccurate, this takes misinformation so far that it just boggles my mind. These are examples from the most recent spate of media coverage of my case:

http://www.tv2.no/nyheter/innenriks/trusler-paa-nett-blir-ulovlig-3947185.html
http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/norsk-politikk/artikkel.php?artid=10071887
http://www.tv2.no/nyheter/innenriks/mottar-ofte-trusler-paa-nett-loven-er-en-revolusjon-3947189.html

They report that the government now wants to make threats on the Internet illegal -- as if this is legal now, which of course is bullshit and can get you into a lot of trouble if you take it seriously. The word they should have used is incitement ("oppvigling" in Norwegian), but this does not appear to be included in their vocabulary; it is all just "threats" to them. Since the news outlets do such a lousy job, I am going take it upon myself to clarify some legal matters surrounding incitement, threats, and glorification.

Firstly, despite what you read in the newspapers, threats have nothing to do with my case. I was never accused of making threats, nor does the proposed legal reform consist of criminalizing threats. Threats on the Internet have in fact been illegal since before the Internet existed, as the law against threats makes no reference to the medium:

§ 227. Med Bøder eller med Fængsel indtil 3 Aar straffes den, som i Ord eller Handling truer med et strafbart Foretagende, der kan medføre høiere Straf end 1 Aars Hefte eller 6 Maaneders Fængsel, under saadanne Omstændigheder, at Truselen er skikket til at fremkalde alvorlig Frygt, eller som medvirker til saadan Trusel. Under særdeles skjerpende omstendigheter, jf. § 232 tredje punktum, kan fengsel inntil 6 år idømmes.

If I had been threatening murder like the newspapers keep reporting, you can be sure that the cops would not have passed up the opportunity to charge me for making threats and would have used §227 instead of §140.

I was just charged with incitement, for expressing my opinion that killing cops is a morally legitimate course of activism for MRAs. This might fit the legal definition of incitement, except the law specifies that incitement must occur in public, and "public" happens to be defined in such a way as to exclude the Internet. I was also somewhat baffled that they didn't try §147c or perhaps §135, though these too would have fallen through on the same technicality (§135 is null and void for additional reasons I will explain below and slated to disappear entirely in favor or freedom of speech). Anyway, I was charged by §140 only, which reads as follows:

§ 140. Den, som offentlig opfordrer eller tilskynder til Iværksettelsen af en strafbar Handling eller forherliger en saadan eller tilbyder at udføre eller bistaa ved Udførelsen af en saadan, eller som medvirker til Opfordringen, Tilskyndelsen, Forherligelsen eller Tilbudet, straffes med Bøder eller med Hefte eller Fængsel indtil 8 Aar, dog i intet Tilfælde med høiere Frihedsstraf end to Tredjedele af den høieste for Handlingen selv anvendelige. Lige med strafbare Handlinger regnes her Handlinger, til hvis Foretagelse det er strafbart at forlede eller tilskynde.

This basically states that whosoever publicly exhorts or incites to the implementation of a punishable act or glorifies such or offers to carry out or aid the execution of such, or who aids and abets the exhortation, implementation, glorification, or offer, can be punished by up to eight years in prison.

I was also charged with the "glorifying" a crime part, the most flagrant example of which cited from my blog being this post. However, as my lawyer has cogently explained to me, glorifying crime is legal and, crucially, it will remain legal after the new law is passed, and even after next time the Penal Code is revised entirely. The take-home message I want to convey in this post is that we are free to exult in and publicly celebrate successful violence against our oppressors.

If you consult the law, it will as quoted above still tell you that glorifying crime is illegal. Even the hearing note published by the government promulgates the myth that the proposed law temporarily expands the scope of §140 and other laws beyond what is allowed by the new penal code of 2005 until that one replaces the current Penal Code of 1902. Hell, even the Lawyer's Association is duped, though they at least half-heartedly oppose such illegal expansion. But this is wrong. The government cannot do it. Most people don't know this, and you certainly can't glean this information from reading the newspapers. I also can't guarantee that the police lawyers have got this straight yet, so there is a risk, if you glorify illegal acts publicly, that you might get arrested and charged, maybe even jailed for a while by the lower courts. But I am confident that you will be cleared in the end just as I was. So rest assured that we can legally express our joy when feminist enforcers are killed.

No punishment for glorifying crime is possible after due consideration of the law, and the reasoning goes like this: A new Penal Code is already worked out, which was already approved back in 2005. And the section of the new law equivalent to §140 does not cover glorification. The new incitement law simply reads like this:

§ 183. Oppfordring til en straffbar handling. Den som offentlig oppfordrer noen til å iverksette en straffbar handling, straffes med bot eller fengsel inntil 3 år.

There is a rule to the effect that when a new criminal law is passed, but not yet in effect, then to the extent that it counts to the citizens' favor, the new law will apply immediately in that regard. So anything in current law which is no longer criminalized in the coming law, is also not punishable today, and glorifying crime is one example of this. Conversely, if the new law constructs new crimes, then of course the state must wait for the law to take effect before prosecuting you, and nothing can become retroactively illegal, or else I could have been convicted under the Penal Code of 2005, which is already Internet-ready.

So why isn't the Penal Code of 2005 implemented yet, after seven years? Supposedly this is due to problems with legacy software in the government computer systems. It would cost billions to update the old systems and make them compatible with the new law, and so the law is postponed indefinitely. My guess is it won't be implemented until sometime in the 2020s. The delay is actually a good thing, since the new law is even more hateful than the old in some ways. The chapter on sex crimes is infuriating reading indeed, perfusing my soul with seething antifeminist hatred. The sex laws thoroughly criminalize every aspect of sexuality you can imagine, same as before, and then some. Negligent rape can now get you ten years, up from eight, while negligent manslaughter is still limited to six years. Most spectacularly: A legal fiction of "rape" is constructed for all sex with anyone under 14. This was formerly construed as "abuse," which is also dishonest and hateful, but now the feminist sex abuse industry escalates their malice to the point of forcing those under 14 to believe they have been "raped" when they have consensual sex. This is similar to the Anglo-American notion of "statutory rape" -- except Norwegians are not culturally prepared to grasp the difference, and so at least initially, news reports of "rape" will tend be taken literally until the unwashed hordes wise up to this legal mendacity. While this change is strictly linguistic and the sentencing remains the same, it represents escalated demonization of men by means of a deliberate lie, showing the true nature of the revolting feminist scumbags in our legislature. They know what they are doing and I requite them with an equal measure of hatred.

So despite some minor expansion of freedom of speech (which I understand legislators were forced into due to human rights obligations -- not because they are nice), we can be thankful that these loathsome feminists can't figure out how to put the entire Penal Code of 2005 into effect yet. In the meantime, politicians must resort to patching up the old laws temporarily whenever they want to introduce new crimes, and this is what is now happening as a direct result of my case. Because I got out of jail, legislators are scrambling to enact what I have previously referred to as Lex Berge to make sure it won't happen again. Rather than touch §140 though, as a stopgap measure they now want to change the legal definition of "public" as defined in §7 from

1. Ved offentligt Sted forstaaes i denne Lov ethvert for almindelig Færdsel bestemt eller almindelig befærdet Sted. 2. En Handling ansees forøvet offentlig, naar den er forøvet ved Udgivelse af trykt Skrift eller i Overvær af et større Antal Personer eller under saadanne Omstændigheder, at den let kunde iagttages fra et offentligt Sted og er iagttaget af nogen der eller i Nærheden værende. 

to

1. Med offentlig sted menes et sted bestemt for alminnelig ferdsel eller et sted der allmennheten ferdes. 2. En handling er offentlig når den er foretatt i nærvær av et større antall personer, eller når den lett kunne iakttas og er iakttatt fra et offentlig sted. Består handlingen i fremsettelse av et budskap, er den også offentlig når budskapet er fremsatt på en måte som gjør det egnet til å nå et større antall personer. 

This will do the trick of making the Internet "public," which will affect various laws referring to "public" speech acts (details here) including §140. The proposed change has now been commented on by various interest groups, and their statements are available here.

As usual, the process of changing the law offers insight into odious feminist lobbying. Sure enough, feminist hate groups like the NGO known as Save the Children seize the opportunity to push for not just criminalization of incitement on the Internet, but more hateful sex laws as well. These scumbags specifically want to include closed, password-protected Internet fora and communities in the definition of "public" so as to criminalize more men who get in touch with hookers in closed spaces under §202, which criminalizes public communications pertaining to prostitution. I hate their guts profoundly and wish all men would heed my advice never to give a penny to feminist hate groups such as Save the Children, Amnesty, etc. who masquerade as charitable organizations. Lobbying by the nauseating cunt rags in these organizations is in large measure how the feminist state was built. For example, Save the Children was also instrumental in lobbying for our grooming law (§ 201a. introduced in 2007), which is now one more tool in the feminist toolbox used to hurt men. And Amnesty keeps campaigning for further expansion of rape law. Also, let us not forget how the cops themselves relentlessly agitate for ever more escalation of sex laws so they can persecute more men, even though the issue at hand is freedom of speech. They are the scum of the earth.

I suppose I should mention that there are some exceptions to my guarantee that glorifying crime is legal. I promote hatred against feminism, which is an ideology, and there is indeed no valid statute against promoting hatred towards political ideologies or glorifying crime against feminist enforcers. However, if you promote hatred towards or glorify crime against some race or religion and so on, then this could be covered by the so-called "racism law," §135a. Unlike the incitement law, this one was already adapted to the Internet in 2005, so another falsehood the journalists need to stop blathering about is that hateful utterances online are now going to be criminalized as if they weren't already:

§ 135a. Den som forsettlig eller grovt uaktsomt offentlig setter frem en diskriminerende eller hatefull ytring, straffes med bøter eller fengsel inntil 3 år. Likt med en offentlig fremsatt ytring, jf. § 7 nr. 2, regnes en ytring når den er satt frem slik at den er egnet til å nå et større antall personer. Som ytring regnes også bruk av symboler. Medvirkning straffes på samme måte. Med diskriminerende eller hatefull ytring menes det å true eller forhåne noen, eller fremme hat, forfølgelse eller ringeakt overfor noen på grunn av deres a) hudfarge eller nasjonale eller etniske opprinnelse, b) religion eller livssyn, eller c) homofile legning, leveform eller orientering.

This law is hateful and contrary to free speech and I totally oppose it, but it does not apply to men's rights activism. At least not unless the MRAs also happen to be racists, xenophobes, homophobes, or religiously intolerant -- none of which applies to me or most MRAs I know.

So in conclusion, while incitement on the Internet may soon turn illegal in Norway, glorifying crime (except against the usual protected minorities) is and will remain legal for the foreseeable future.

Why I have repudiated my family

It is said that you learn who your true friends are in times of hardship. One of the few things I am actually grateful to the cops for is making it abundantly clear who are and are not my friends. In my experience police interrogations are an excellent litmus test for who your true friends are and who are your enemies, or at best, naive authoritarian police-state sycophants with whom you should not associate at all for your own safety.

Suppose you are arrested, jailed and charged with bullshit crimes, whereupon the police interrogate family and friends in order to build a case. The results can be very revealing indeed, since of course you are entitled to read the transcripts of all these interrogations (although I am not sure the interrogatees were mindful of this fact). Out of all the 10 or so people the cops talked to (and they made reports detailing what was said on the phone too, so I got a good impression of the attitudes of those who declined a formal interrogation as well), only my girlfriend passed this test of true friendship. The rest revealed themselves as utter scumbags. It was shocking, really, as I had not expect quite such an exuberantly bootlicking display of kowtowing to authority. My father was the worst. At his interrogation he initially expressed relief that I was imprisoned and said he hoped I would receive a punishment that even Breivik was spared -- psychiatric coercion. And then he proceeded with badmouthing me for 13 pages, volunteering bizarre and erroneous reasons largely manufactured by his imagination for why he thinks I am "sick." All this despite not being obligated to say anything at all, as even in authoritarian Norway no one can be forced to testify against close family members. Other family members echoed my dad's sentiments, albeit with slightly less extreme embellishments. They all wanted to see me attacked by psychiatry. My opinions and stature as a public men's rights activist bother them, so they think they can conveniently make it all go away by fantasizing about mental illness.

The interrogations influenced the cops to order a psychiatric observation in the hope of declaring me unaccountable and provided grist for the mill for further imprisonment. The entire second court hearing was basically built around my alleged mental instability. The police lawyer even called me mentally unstable in the media before I had been evaluated by a psychiatrist. And in court he had the audacity to request closed doors in order to cater to my family (secrecy is often requested in Norway when the prosecution has something to hide) and make their lies less uncomfortable for them (we objected and secrecy was not granted).

I wish I could publish all the interrogations as well as the psychiatric report in full. My family tried to hurt me and they do not deserve secrecy. Due to egregiously unjust laws I am only allowed to read these transcripts at my lawyer's office. As I see it, all this secrecy is another feature of institutionalized corruption in the Norwegian justice system. These documents were presented to a court (actually three courts) in order to get me imprisoned (and successfully so for three weeks), and so they should of course be public. Secrecy serves accusers and the cops but it does not serve justice.

I could write more about the oddities of the Norwegian system. In Norway at pretrial hearings there are two separate games played: one in the courtroom and one in the media. Since the press is barred from quoting what is said in court even when they are allowed to attend (we demanded to get this limitation overruled as well but was denied), what is said publicly by lawyers on both sides as well as the defendant often does not correspond to what actually takes place in court. Different things are said to each when it is tactically advantageous. It quaintly felt like fighting in two separate arenas with different rules, and though I enjoy a good media circus as much as the next guy, I was frustrated by the lack of simple public illumination of the actual documents in the case, all of which I would have been well served by publishing.

So unfortunately I am limited to quoting the interrogations from memory, much of which I have forgotten. To get a flavor of it, my dad said things like I spend all my time isolated in my room behind dark curtains, so I must be sick. It is a false, and he doesn't even have any way of knowing what I do with my time since I haven't lived with him since 2005. And even then it was not true. For one thing, I marched in the Global Marijuana March five years in a row and even helped organize it in Bergen. Being the leftist that he is, my highly social activism against the drug war (as well as for men's rights) does not count. Since I choose to do other things than whatever he thinks would be proper, he has decided I am "sick" and need "treatment," and everything he told the cops was meant to substantiate that claim. Absurdly, much was made of the supposed dimmed lights in my room and the fact that I don't open the curtains much. Evidently you need the sun shining in your face while viewing your computer screen in order to be sane in his opinion? What a moron. There is a time to be out in the sun (which I do every day when I go running and other things) and a time to work at your computer, and combining them isn't terribly convenient.

He may have been able to fool the cops, but luckily the forensic psychiatrist was not so gullible. It was a tough call whether I should agree to talk to the psychiatrist they sent to Bergen prison at all, but I decided that since I have nothing to hide, it would be best to be completely open and get it over with, which is what was bound to happen if the psychiatrist was accountable himself. And he was. We can laugh at it now, but it got really tense at the time. The situation was a matter of life or death. Just imagine how you would feel if psychiatric coercion was brought to bear in an attempt to change your ideology. Would you sacrifice your integrity, allow yourself to be poisoned by toxic chemicals, and pretend to change your mind in order to eventually get out, or would you fight it to the death (and lose your mind in the process)? Facing this situation was a real possibility and if my family had had their way, I would not be here today. I have stated in no uncertain terms that in the event that I should fall victim to psychiatric coercion, then the outcome will be lethal not just for me, and I stand by this 100%. I would feign docility (fighting at every stage is most honorable, but let's face it: resistance is futile and inevitably leads to psychosis as you are strapped down and caged indefinitely) and emerge as a violent activist (i.e. suicide attacker, since I wouldn't let them capture me alive again) against psychiatry after however long it would take to get out, even if it would take decades. And since that blog post was already entered as evidence in the case, I had basically signed my own death sentence. It is doubtful that I would ever get out. I even reiterated my resolve to avenge psychiatric coercion in court, and upheld violent activism as the most ethical way for anybody to relate to psychiatric coercion if you are a victim of it. I feel very strongly about this and no technology exists to change my mind. They can torture you and kill you, but thankfully there is as of yet no way in psychiatry's toolbox to change a person's ideology into whatever they consider politically correct. Opinions cannot be coerced. At least not when your ideology is not based on any delusions but represents your full moral and political conviction. Yes, you would have to kill me in order to kill my ideology, because such is my concept of identity that the opinion cannot be separated from the man. And if I forfeit the integrity of my mind, then I shall consider myself already dead and act accordingly as described in my cognitive liberty blog post. If ever victimized by psychiatry, the remaining energy in this body shall go exclusively towards a bloody revenge.

People like my father do not respect my having an independent opinion. They think they can coerce me into adopting whatever opinion they see fit. It is bizarre and cruel, and mind-boggling that anybody can be so deranged, really. Personally I would not entertain the notion of coercing opinions on even my worst enemies, even if it were possible. You do not, if you are a decent person, settle disputes by pathologizing your adversaries. That would be an infantile worldview. The world is not some cozy place where you are right about everything and anyone who disagrees is sick. True heartfelt hatred exists in this world and whichever views you hold, somebody is going to hate your guts for it. They are entitled to their opinion. Irreconcilable differences exist and they may legitimately lead to violence and war, but never psychiatry. The struggle I am attempting to usher in against feminist sex law is motivated by real moral indignation, and no amount of psychiatry can or should change that even if you are on the opposite side. Feminism versus MRA is an irreconcilable difference that can only be resolved by violence; indeed that is how it is resolved as we speak. Currently, normal male sexuality is suppressed by state violence and men don't fight back. The MRA mission is to thwart the state-enforced violence that feminists wield today, and I was a political prisoner of this war. This conflict is real and has nothing to do with mental illness, nor can I be brainwashed by psychiatry to relinquish my agenda.

Fortunately, and despite the psychiatrist being selected by the police and thus biased accordingly, he saw through the foolishness of my family and pronounced me sane. His report was conclusive enough and so favorable I almost could have written it myself, but it was still a close shave. The Breivik case revealed that forensic psychiatry is rather like playing Russian roulette with your mind. If I had not chanced to be seen by a fairly reasonable psychiatrist, but rather some scumbags like Torgeir Husby and Synne Sørheim (it is still not clear to me if they are psychopaths or just plain incompetent, but either way they will ruin your life) who will declare you insane for no good reason, then my life would have been over, and it is no thanks to my family that it ended well.

In Norway, the convenience of the cops trumps everything. It is routine to keep in all likelihood innocent suspects in solitary confinement for months just so the cops can check out some distant lead or attempt to break you down in order to extract a confession; say if someone dumps a corpse in your garden and you seem like a shady character. It is really scary how easily the police have their way and how nonexistent is any movement for civil liberties. Suspects are also jailed based on fabricated evidence, or in my case highly distorted evidence (e.g. textbooks on explosives I received as a conscript in the military were used to paint me as a dangerous terrorist). I now fully realize based on personal experience that no matter how convincing evidence presented in court by the prosecution may appear to a spectator, it may well be total bullshit.

It boggles the mind that Norwegians put up with such police methods. It is as if they think police can do no wrong and should have unlimited powers. Pretrial detention is standard operating procedure. In Norway you are presumed guilty and jailed on first suspicion, frequently in full isolation, and then only released if the cops fail turn up any convincing evidence after months of investigation at their leisure. Foreign readers should take note that the Norwegian system is profoundly more oppressive in certain ways than what you expect, at least prior to trial. Where American suspects get to bail themselves out, Norwegian suspects get solitary confinement. Solitary confinement is torture and here it can happen to anyone for many months based on some vague suspicion and the flimsiest of pretext that you might otherwise spoil the (nonexistent) evidence. Yet this does not seem to bother most people until it happens to them. Norwegians are truly an authority-loving sheeple. In the face of such a totalitarian state, can you at least trust your family not to side with the cops and jump to the conclusion that you are maximally guilty from the outset? One would hope so, but I found that I cannot. My family showed their true color as world-class scumbags, and so for my own safety I have resolved never to talk to them again.

Good riddance. I consider myself fortunate to have tested this in a real situation. Others might take a moment to reflect if your family are liable to cooperate with the police, or even worse, sell you down the river to psychiatry. If so, you might want to remove them from your life. Such persons are a deadly liability and not worth the risk of associating with, even if they are your parents or siblings. This is not meant to be mean; just basic self-preservation.

Case dropped

Exactly three months after Norway's Supreme Court ruled that my blogging is outside the purview of criminal law, the police have finally conceded that they have to drop their case against me. It still needs to be finally decided by the Attorney-General, but at least the cops have admitted they have no case.

The stage is now set for claiming compensation for wrongful prosecution, including the three weeks I spent in prison. I haven't discussed the details with my lawyer yet, but we expect to be reimbursed according to the usual rates for baseless prosecution and imprisonment. I have been treated and portrayed as a criminal, even though I broke no laws, so I am clearly entitled to compensation like any other falsely accused person. However unpopular my opinions may be should have no bearing on this. And if the state refuses to settle for a reasonable amount, then we shall sue them.

Antifeminism in Norwegian

I can possibly thank the editors of Kuiper magazine for my freedom right now. This spring, they invited me to write an article (in Norwegian) on gender issues for their literary magazine, and so I did. It was supposed to appear alongside articles by feminists who were also invited to contribute. But as it turned out, the feminists didn't complete their work, and the editors did not want to publish my article on its own without any arguments from the opposing side. This is the excuse I received for not publishing my article:

Vi har nå bestemt hva som skal være med i Kuiper-nummeret, og har dessverre ikke funnet plass til din tekst likevel.
Det er det to grunner til: Da vi ba deg om å skrive en tekst, var tanken at vi skulle ha en debatt-seksjon i dette nummeret, hvor vi la skjønnlitteraturen til side og skrev om mannen i samfunnet. De to andre tekstene vi hadde tenkt at skulle stå til din tekst, blir heller ikke trykket. Den ene var for dårlig, og den andre ble aldri levert. Slik er det noen ganger når man lager et tidsskrift uten penger til å betale bidragsyterne våre for arbeidet de skal gjøre.
Vi vurderte å trykke din artikkel på egen hånd, men flere i redaksjonen var motvillige til å gjøre det på grunn av innholdet - og da særlig når din artikkel fikk stå uimotsagt, uten det motsatte perspektivet. Jeg beklager at det ble slik.

All because Kuiper declined to publish my piece on the gender war, or more accurately because some feminists couldn't be bothered (or were unable) to write decent articles, I am at large today and free to pursue more activism. So it all works out for the best, even though I was somewhat disappointed at the time.

Now I am traveling to Oslo to be on a TV show (Trygdekontoret) to debate feminists. Since this program tends to be more a comedy show than serious debate, and there is only so much you can say on a 40-minute TV production with several participants anyway, I thought this was a good time to promote my unpublished article before it is criminalized. Interested Norwegian-speakers can hereby read my article "Mannskamp" for a succinct overview of what men's rights activism is all about.

This article may or may not constitute criminal incitement if it were published in print media. The cops certainly believe it does, as they included it in the case documents in their attempt to prosecute me, and the lowest court (and only the lowest court) agreed with the cops and found probable cause sufficient for pretrial detention. But at any rate, as the Supreme Court has ruled, whether it would fit the criminal definition of incitement by §140 or not, everything I have written is legal for now as long as it is only published on the Internet. And thanks to Kuiper, I haven't published anything in print. The medium, rather than the content, makes all the difference and keeps me out of jail. So here is the link again for those interested in more than the satirical treatment of my views they may get on TV: "Mannskamp."

Comments are welcome on both the article and my appearance on TV, which will air on Wednesday, October 17 at NRK.

Lex Berge

After Norway's Supreme Court decided my blog is legal, a chorus of feminist pundits opined that the law needs to be changed in order to punish me and other bloggers who express opinions online that would be defined as criminal incitement under the Penal Code of 1902 §140 if they were expressed in print media. The cops went so far as claiming they may charge me again under the new law unless I delete whatever offensive statements from my blog they tried and failed to prosecute me for already. It is still unclear exactly which statements that might be, as the case was thrown out on the technicality that blogging isn't covered by the law because the Internet isn't defined as "public," which is a requirement for incitement to be a crime. Thus the courts never got around to deciding whether my blog actually would be illegal if the medium itself were covered by the law against incitement. While I see this as free speech appropriate for the Internet, totalitarian politicians interpret it as a loophole in the law exposed by my case which needs to be closed promptly, so as to be able to put bloggers like me in jail for promoting men's rights activism and other crimes they don't like.

Now the proposal is ready for changing the law. Whoever spoke of Lex Berge got it right. I thought they might be bluffing, but the government really is trying to change the law in my honor. This is the direction they were headed anyway, but the process of legal reform is accelerated because of me. While it must feel good if you are a feminist or leftist to be able to jail me, keep in mind that this law will at least in theory be applicable to a vast number of feminists as well. My statements are not particularly violent compared to some mainstream feminist writing, not to mention leftist revolutionary tracts. How do you think something like the SCUM Manifesto, for example, would hold up against this law? Do you really want to risk several years in prison for expressing yourself like that if you feel like it? And making the law retroactively applicable to old archives means you can suddenly be arrested for something you don't even remember writing. It is really outrageous if you think about it and I suspect many supporters of this law are blinded by the fact that I am an antifeminist and libertarian. You may feel safe under a leftist regime, but that may change and you never know if your opinions will be the politically correct ones in the future. So I would urge everyone to support freedom of speech no matter where you stand on the political spectrum. I hope the Norwegian people will now stand up against the government and resist this new law. Let us make it clear that we do not want this new law because it represents an unreasonable limitation of free speech. Here is how to respond to the proposed law:

Departementet ber om høringsinstansenes syn på forslagene. Høringsfristen er 26. oktober 2012. Høringsuttalelser sendes til Justis- og beredskapsdepartementet, Lovavdelingen, postboks 8005 Dep, 0030 Oslo. Vi ber om å få høringsuttalelsene elektronisk i tillegg til i ordinært brev. E-post kan sendes til lovavdelingen@jd.dep.no.

While I agree that much of the Internet including this blog is public, I do not agree that §140 should be kept. It is an intrinsically undemocratic law which proscribes a lot of honest and natural expression going on online. We already know the "glorification" of crime part of §140 is null and void and contrary to human rights, so that part of the prosecution's case is sure to be lost from the outset. What remains is the promotion of criminal acts as ethically right, which also ought to be within free speech. A public debate about the ethics of cop-killing or whatever is unduly hampered if the "wrong" conclusion will land you in jail. Or what do y'all think? I think the proposed legal reform is evil and unrealistic and don't plan to delete anything from my archives. I already said I will focus on promoting other, less illegal avenues of men's rights activism than cop-killing in the future, and that should be enough.

Renaissance or resistance?

As the case is falling apart for the police, they have started giving me my stuff back. My words are legal and so are my belongings.

So far I got one cactus back. This cactus isn't even psychoactive, and in any case the alkaloid content does not matter because there is no such thing as an illegal cactus in Norway, when kept as a living decorative house plant as I was doing. While mescaline is a controlled substance, live cactus is not. I also had specimens of Lophopora williamsii (peyote) and Trichocereus pachanoi (San Pedro), which are still in police custody. These will also have to be returned to me because as much as the cops would like to destroy them and charge me with drug crimes, there is no law criminalizing live cacti at this point. You have to prepare them in some way for consumption or extract the mescaline before it becomes illegal, and I am not into that. I really mean it when I say they are only for decoration. I have been a psychonaut, to be sure, but that was many years ago and I have no interest in tripping anymore (or using any other recreational drugs including alcohol for that matter). My attitude to psychedelic drugs and the entheogens can now be summarized by this quote by Alan Watts: "When you get the message, hang up the phone." Been there, done that. I've been to both Heaven and Hell and am in no hurry to return, to say the least. These drugs are called entheogens because they generate God within. Whether the mystical experiences they unleash have any spiritual validity I cannot tell. Perhaps they are just mind states like any other. But then that applies to spiritual insights obtained by other routes also, such as meditation. I remain skeptical and agnostic, as ever. I do know that I want to live in the material world and make the most of it here and now. Eternal things can wait until they inevitably confront us (or not), and meanwhile I just want to have some pretty flowers in my living room, which is perfectly legal and harmless. This is what my peyote looks like when it flowers:

Articles about the Harlem Renaissance are apparently very suspicious and require police attention.

This is how it was presented in the case documents: "The Harlem Resisstance" [sic].

This is what your bookshelf looks like after the cops have searched through everything:

Even regular books are suspicious to the Bergen police. This is an ex-library book purchased used via Amazon Marketplace. Seized by cops because if you read about rape you must be a criminal, right?

I learned from this case that we only have as much privacy as we make, which is to say you pretty much need to keep everything digital and encrypted if you care about privacy and the cops should decide to investigate you. This calendar, for example, was analyzed to the extent of looking up my friends whose numbers were in it and discussing their criminal records in the case documents.

The police even managed to spill a jar of old coins, some of which fell into the subwoofer of my Harman Kardon Soundsticks III.

The coins are impossible to get out without breaking the subwoofer, as far as I can tell, and as long as they are there the sound is horrible.

My computer equipment has been returned. These are some of the seized hard drives. But they broke my laptop, evidently while circumventing the BIOS password protection. I expect to be reimbursed for this as well.

My explosives manuals originating from my military service are also perfectly legal, of course, and I could have demanded them back. However, when the cops asked if I could give them up as a favor, I agreed because I don't particularly need them anyway.

Supreme Court victory

I am delighted to report that Norway's Supreme Court ruled in my favor today. My blog is legal after all. The police had no lawful basis for pursuing criminal charges against me. This means the case has collapsed for the prosecution and I will be entitled to compensation for the three weeks I spent in prison. I was arrested and jailed for speech which the Supreme Court has ruled is legal, so obviously the entire prosecution was utterly baseless. The cops now also have to give me my computers and other seized property back, including my cactuses, which are also not illegal. They even have to delete my DNA. A lot of people wanted to see me punished, but justice prevailed today nonetheless. Kudos to the Supreme Court for upholding the law even though it meant reaching a verdict unpalatable to feminists and the police.

I am relieved and happy to be free, and proud of the impact my case has had on the public discourse regarding feminism and antifeminism in Norway. Being a political prisoner provided a welcome boost to my activism. Which should surprise no one, because suppressing speech generally tends to be counterproductive. The entire process has been tremendously empowering for the Men's Rights Movement. This spectacular prosecution of an MRA sparked debate and demonstrated to the horror of the feminist establishment that there are more antifeminists out there than they knew. I am not some kind of extremist easily dismissed, even though some of my writings may appear somewhat ungenteel. While my kind of violent rhetoric is legal, it is no longer needed. We are strong enough to fight feminism in more elegant and subtle ways now.

Out of prison

Three weeks ago I was arrested while jogging and charged with incitement based on opinions expressed on this blog. I was imprisoned and faced up to 8 years. However, now an appellate court (Gulating lagmannsrett) has ruled that my blog is actually legal, so assuming the Supreme Court upholds this decision next week, the entire case stands to collapse for the prosecution and I am completely exonerated. Some of my utterances may have been infelicitous (and won't be repeated), but they are not illegal under current law.

It has been quite an adventure being treated as an extremely dangerous enemy of the state, and I will have lots more to say about my prison experience later. Now I must try to piece my life back together, which is difficult because the cops stole all my computers and storage media etc. and made a mess of all the rest of my belongings. Of course, with my controversial opinions I know better than having anything illegal at home, but that does not stop the cops from dreaming up conspiracy theories based on whatever everyday items they find. Among the things seized are normal books bought at Amazon, notebooks, calendars and papers, even printouts of newspaper articles. They also later returned and stole all my perfectly legal cactuses, which amounts to sheer bullying. They impounded a folder labeled "The Harlem Renaissance," which contained my notes and articles (from when I was a grad student in English in 2002-4) about that literary movement. In the documents provided to my lawyer this has become "The Harlem Resistance." Apparently they think this is evidence of terrorist plans or whatever. Textbooks about explosives handed to me by the Army when I was conscripted back in 1997 were also presented by the cops to the courts and media as evidence that I am seriously dangerous and need to be imprisoned. When this nonsense was exposed, they started attacking my mental health, portraying me as mentally unstable before I talked to a psychiatrist who reached the opposite conclusion and found me sane. These are just some examples of the incredible turns of events in this case. And if it doesn't end in the Supreme Court next week, I have a hell of a trial to look forward to, which I will take full advantage of as a pulpit for men's rights activism.

Thoughts on the trial

Breivik's obsession with Islamization is (I hope) but a tiny footnote to the history of the coming civil war between MRAs and manginas over feminist sex law. The lack of attention to men's rights issues in the trial so far is somewhat disappointing. Breivik at his worst has even embraced and amplified pieces of feminist dogma, most notably when he claims Muslim men have raped 90,000 Norwegian women since 1960. This is doubtless true if you use the feminist (and now legal) definition of rape, but if rape instead is reasonably defined as intercourse resisted by the woman to the best of her ability unless she is credibly threatened with death or serious injury, the claim becomes untenable. Nonetheless, some auspicious developments for men have emerged from the trial so far. Breivik is at his best when he takes on psychiatry. The spectacle of court-appointed psychiatrists exposing themselves as charlatans is pleasing to behold. Indeed the most positive upshot of Breivik's activism and judicial process, in my view, is making it more difficult to declare future activists insane. Breivik has thus served to habilitate Western terrorism. Since "treatment" in a mental asylum is the most barbaric and inhumane sanction society can legally impose on an individual (arguably worse than the death penalty), such punishment is understandably wished upon perpetrators of extraordinarily heinous crimes. However, psychiatry is inherently pseudoscientific and coercive enough without being brazenly applied towards political ends. Thus when activists are defined as "psychotic" and "schizophrenic" and held unaccountable merely because their political views deviate from whatever is politically correct, the charade becomes so obvious that it backfires on their entire profession and the psychiatrists are so widely discredited that their efforts work to the terrorist's advantage. If Breivik is subjected to chemical torture, it will be obvious that the system is corrupt and does not follow its own ostensible ethics which require a valid diagnosis. Pretending he is insane when he is obviously a rational warrior would turn him into a martyr and bolster any resistance movement against the current regime. It is possible to disagree with a political regime and decide to fight it even unto death without being delusional. You may not agree with the ideals behind that decision, but defining such activists as insane only serves to obliterate your own credibility and hence undermine the legitimacy of the regime you represent. This realization has evidently hit the Norwegian forensic psychiatric community like a ton of bricks and they are now engaged in damage control, trying to save face by having Breivik declared competent after all, which is the maximum victory he can gain from the trial under the circumstances and what now appears to be the most likely outcome.

Unlike Breivik, I don't mind living in a multicultural society. Freedom of religion and migration are self-evident rights to a libertarian like me, and racism is anathema. But I do not want to live in a society with sex laws based on misandry. The feminist police state is so morally repugnant that I cannot in good conscience stand by complacently as it escalates, even if I am not directly punished by feminist law myself. An activist for men is still such a rara avis that we must at least to some extent laud any adversary of the feminist state, even if he is unsavory in some ways. MRAs are few because sadly, most people lack the moral development to see beyond positive law. They fail to comprehend the concept of natural law, which would tell them feminist sex law is a travesty upon earth. The problem with most people is they are too law-abiding. Hence they are easy to oppress, and easily persuaded to hurt others in the name of authority. Most people just blindly follow authority. I differ from the hoi polloi most significantly insofar as I realize the authorities are full of shit, particularly in regard to sex crimes, and so I do not respect them. I fully discern what hateful scumbags are the feminists in the abuse industry who came up with our contemporary sex laws, and I understand the nature of the lies they use to justify them all too well to fall for their propaganda.

Excessive respect for authorities is even found in the Men's Movement. Hence you have the syndrome among the more simpleminded MRAs that the only antidote to untrammeled criminalization of male sexuality they can see is to apply these same absurd laws to women equally. They regard it as a victory when hateful laws are applied to women as well as men, partly because they are brainwashed by feminists to believe the sexes are equal and also because they cannot conceive of nullifying laws because their moral development appears to be lacking. They think the law is the highest authority. Thus they tend to applaud when the feminist state hurts women too, for example by imprisoning a mother for three years and requiring her to register as a sex offender because her 17-year-old daughter decided to work as a stripper. Yes, the feminist state has once again outdone itself in hateful absurdity. At this point we can dispense with any notion that the state exists to protect women and see it for the behemoth inflictor of maximal damage to all people that it really is. But two wrongs do not make a right. We need to cut the crap and attack the madness of feminist anti-sex hatred at its core.

I base my morality on basic universal (libertarian) principles, and I disrespect positive law when it egregiously contravenes what I believe is right. This means I reject at least 95% of current sexual legislation, which I see for the misandry it is. Bluntly put, I consider myself a political sex offender, which is not a popular position to take, but to me it is more important to do the right thing than to be tolerated by polite society.

What are the limits to misandry? Experience tells me there is literally no limit. Misandry can proceed arbitrarily far. To illustrate, age of consent and statutory rape laws are openly based on nothing but legal fictions with no basis in fact whatsoever, yet they enjoy wide support. The very word "statutory" candidly signifies that these crimes are created by statute rather than reality. Yet droves of "men" (and I use that term loosely) are primitive enough to internalize the hatred against themselves codified by these laws. They are simpletons and impressionable fools, to be sure, but that is how it is. Moreover, an entire industry (that we MRAs contemptuously call the abuse industry) has sprung up to reify the legal fictions represented by these laws, brainwashing girls and, perversely, even sometimes boys so as to feel "raped" or "abused" after harmless, consensual sex. Every time I read about men (and sometimes women) falling victim to these laws -- which is daily -- my hatred against feminism grows.

No matter how far the feminist state escalates, the majority of men will support it. Politics is simply a competition of who can be the biggest mangina and hurt men the most to the advantage of women, and the cops will enforce any law you tell them to no matter how unreasonable and hateful. History has shown that if you (or even an invading army) tell Norwegian cops to round up all the Jews and ship them off to death camps after confiscating all their property, for example, they will happily oblige. There is no reason they won't do the same with sex offenders, and feminists get to define "sex offender" exactly they way they want. The only people who deserve to be targeted by feminist sex laws are the politicians themselves. Amusingly, male politicians are frequently hoist by the hateful laws they helped pass, but even then they will never speak up against the law itself. They will merely defend themselves within the framework of the law (claiming they "didn't do it") rather than seek jury nullification like a proper MRA would do, and they will continue to support any misandrist law the feminists can conceive of, at least as long as women can vote. Women are Team Women and so are most men. If the feminist state tomorrow declared, say, that sex with women with brown eyes is always rape, I have no doubt manginas would support this law and the entire justice system would unflinchingly enforce it, because many laws already on the books are every bit as absurd. As we keep seeing time and again, the cops are unabashed scum of the earth who blatantly single out the most misandristic laws for the highest priority of enforcement. I have followed feminist escalation long enough to be disillusioned of any limits to misandry, because clearly none exist.

However, as the feminist police state escalates, even as most men support it or are complacent, the few MRAs who do oppose it will get more militant. The current political milieu is tremendously radicalizing for those of us who pay attention. Opposition must rise from the grassroots in order to perturb such a regime. With asymmetric warfare, we can inflict significant damage and perhaps influence policies and laws. There is precedent for activism at the group level influencing authorities. Look to the African-Americans for one example. Los Angeles burned in 1992 because blacks were angry about a court verdict, triggering a new verdict with a fairer outcome (not that I condone double jeopardy, but the point is blacks are admirably capable of group activism, unlike men). Now Zimmerman must be lynched in order to avoid race riots, because blacks are race-conscious. Unfortunately, men are still low on gender-consciousness, so the feminist state can pretty much do as it pleases for now. Men ought to emulate the black sense of racial identity applied to gender, and we need more belligerent leaders to incite the masses like they have MLK, Jesse Jackson and so on. My dream is for the Men's Rights Movement to grow strong enough to at least hurt the state at a comparable level to what American blacks can, eventually making the authorities too scared to fight their war on male sexuality. If we trudge on, we can achieve this. Let us set aside racial and religious differences and each of us from the humblest blogger to the deadliest activist do what we can to fight feminism. Let us all get along and direct all our animosity squarely at the feminist state and its enforcers.

How dare men think yes means yes?

"For you boys and men I want to ask: If the girl has been drinking at all, do you really dare take the chance that she actually means 'yes'?"

This is the latest threat from the police in Oslo, uttered by spokescunt for sex crimes Hanne Kristin Rohde. In other words the pigs are eager to arrest and prosecute you for rape if a woman regrets sex after a single drink -- even if she said "yes" -- and thanks to feminist rape law reform which introduced the concept of "negligent rape" back in 2000, they can. Women are officially to be regarded as such delicate flowers that the slightest amount of intoxication will invalidate their consent. Which would seem somewhat insulting and contrary to any notion that women are equal, perhaps, but also tremendously empowering. Alcohol instantly confers on women a blank check to accuse men of rape in case they have any regrets whatsoever. Meanwhile men are always held responsible for our actions no matter how much we imbibe, of course. I feel like I am back in freshman orientation again, except by now the most hateful feminist policies have been realized on a societal scale.

Thus the feminist utopia is taken to the next level. However, a criminal trial is currently underway in Oslo to remind us that not all men are happy about the feminist regime. You reap as you sow, feminists, and insurrection is looking more compelling for Norwegian men every day as you escalate the misandry.

Let me repeat that quote again in the original:

- Til dere gutter og menn vil jeg spørre: Hvis jenta i det hele tatt har drukket, tar du virkelig sjansen på at hun faktisk mener «ja»?

Gentlemen, this is how much your country hates you, and all the players in the justice system openly admit that this is how they want it. Now I suggest you reflect a little on what you want to contribute back to a society which is prepared to ruin your life on such a flimsy pretext because that's how much of a piece of shit a man offically is compared to a female.

The Misandry of Politics

If you join the gang of violent misandrist thugs known as the police, don't be surprised if they turn on you as soon as you act like a man. Albert Covarrubias learned the hard way how men are treated by feminist law enforcers. The 29-year-old officer was shot by his fellow pigs as soon as they got wind of his relationship with a 17-year-old girl.

Police said he had to be arrested immediately on suspicion of illegal sex with a teenage minor early Saturday because of the seriousness of the evidence and allegations against him.
The officer physically resisted the arrest and fired his gun before another officer fatally shot him at a DUI checkpoint where he'd been working, police said. No one else was injured.

Since his job was to hurt people, I can contain my sympathy for this dead feminist enforcer. But his premature death wasn't right either, and it should serve as a warning for other men trying to decide what to do with their lives. Gentlemen, this is how much our society loathes us just for being men. It behooves us to reflect on our worthlessness as defined by our culture, because it has bearing on what our contribution back to this society should be. Feminist sex law formally codifies the relative worth of the sexes, and make no mistake about it, a man is a worthless piece of shit. What happened to Albert Covarrubias was not an anomaly. Our culture thinks nothing of throwing the life of any man away for the slightest sexual insult to a woman. Whether it is real or based on nothing but statutory fiction or even false altogether is of little consequence. The bottom line is men are despised for embodying anything resembling manliness, and all our institutions exist to serve women at the expense of men. Astonishingly, they even expect men to serve and uphold the system while treating us as pariahs at the same time.

So, too, in politics. The high-profile rape accusation against Helge Solum Larsen is now exposing not only the nature of feminist rape law, which lets women regret sex and bring rape charges regardless of the circumstances, but also the wider misandry endemic to our entire political system. It is as revealing as it is ugly. This scandal has really brought out the worst in the party Venstre and other political commentators. Their hateful feminist values now shine through for all to see. When sex with young nubile women is regarded as an automatic "breach of trust" on the part of male leaders, it is clear that Norwegian politics is a culture which caters only to women. Men may become leaders, but they are not supposed to reap the fruits of their efforts. The depth of anti-male bias in Norwegian politics is perhaps best summed up in this hateful statement by Anders Giæver: "Ikke noe politisk parti kan leve med at en av lederne har seksuell omgang med en beruset 17 år gammel partifelle på et partiarrangement, uavhengig av andre omstendigheter." So there you have it. An earnest feminist scumbag lies down the law for all the manginas to follow. Regardless of the circumstances, rape or not, sex with drunk 17-year-old girls at party events is incompatible with a political career. Why would any man in his right mind sign up for a career in such a system? What is in it for men, if they have to abnegate their sexuality in order to be in politics? Are our male politicians really that stupid? Am I the only one who thinks it's time to start a pro-male party?

Men are only tolerated in our society as long as they behave like eunuchs. When men act like men, we are criminals and when famous men act like men it is also a "scandal." But in truth, the law is the scandal and so is the culture of misandry. Helge Solum Larsen simply did what any normal man would do. This type of situation still goes on regularly despite the hypocritical feminist affirmations of our male politicians; but in this case, the girl had her regrets and since this is a feminist state, it is taken seriously as rape and exposed all over the news. As the details now stand, there is still a tiny possibility that it was in fact rape (and by that I mean the girl was forced to have intercourse despite resisting to the best of her ability). But by defining rape so ludicrously that real rape is drowned out by all the phony feminist-defined rape, it has gotten exceedingly difficult to spot a real rape. The presumption must be that this is not real rape even if it legally is. We are so used to drunk women getting away with calling sex rape simply because they regret it that if a real rape should occur in a nachspiel setting, it requires extraordinary evidence. Feminist rape law reform has done even more than false accusations to destroy the credibility of the accuser. Paradoxically, by taking rape too seriously, feminists have achieved a climate where rape allegations cannot be taken seriously by any reasonable observer until we pretty much get to see it with our own eyes.

Also, can somebody please tell me the identity of Solum's accuser, if you know who she is? I'd like to publish her name and it seems the mainstream news media are conspiring to shield her. I know this is common practice with sex allegations, but it is wrong. All parties should be named and everything should be out in the open.

No Accuser Needed For Feminist Rape Trial

The feminist police state has once again outdone itself. You would think that no matter how ludicrously rape was defined, it would at least require an accuser. Not so in this hateful feminist utopia. All it takes to charge you with rape is footage of nude, apparently unconscious women on your hard drive. Such is the zeal of feminist rape prosecution that no woman ever needs to come forward and accuse you, or even be identified. Man charged with raping three unknown women:

Politiet mener opptakene er gjort i 2010 og at noen av mannens møbler synes på filmene. De har siktet ham for voldtekt av de tre kvinnene.
Mannen har forklart at bildene ikke sier ham noe, men at han ser at trekket på sofaen ligner og kan være hans.
...
Politiet mener filmene uansett holder til domfellelse.

This is even more absurd than the trial we saw last month where a man got 4.5 years for a supposed rape attempt which nobody remembers. That case at least had a woman involved who felt violated, even though she couldn't remember what happened because she had been drinking to blackout. Yet even an oblivious accuser is superfluous to feminist justice. This case has no accuser, only the feminist machine seeking to destroy a man's life for its own sake.

I regret expressing misgivings about my initial joyous reaction to Breivik's activism at Utøya. The contrition wasn't heartfelt, and recent escalations of the feminist police state make me feel so sheepish for vacillating that I hereby retract my disclaimer. The feminist state is so flagrantly out of control that it and its abettors most assuredly deserve anything they can get.

Nonviolent Resistance: FIJA

There are ways to fight tyrannical laws without resorting to violent insurrection. We don't even necessarily need to get unjust laws repealed in order to protect ourselves. As long as the right to a jury trial is respected, the people can defend citizens from the worst abuses of government. It is called jury nullification, which is a peaceful way to tell the government to fuck off. If I ever find myself on the jury of a criminal trial involving, say, statutory or feminist-defined rape or nonviolent drug offenses, I would vote to acquit in any event as a matter of principle, regardless of the evidence, because I fundamentally disagree with the laws in question. Convicting anybody for such bogus, victimless crimes would be contrary to my core libertarian moral values. Moreover, it would be my right and duty as a juror to judge the law as much as the person, and refuse to convict when I find the law morally repulsive. Sadly many jurors fail to realize this, and instead think they are supposed to uphold the law no matter how much they disagree with it. Today I was delighted to come across an organization working to inform potential jurors of their proper role. FIJA is the Fully Informed Jury Association, and here is finally a charity I can get behind! As they put it,

The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by government. The Constitution guarantees you the right to trial by jury. This means that government must bring its case before a jury of The People if the government wants to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property. Jurors can say no to government tyranny by refusing to convict.

FIJA Works to:
Inform potential jurors that they cannot be required to check their conscience at the courthouse door;

Inform potential jurors that they cannot be punished for their verdict;

Inform everyone that juror veto--juror nullification--is a peaceful way to protect human rights against corrupt politicians and government tyranny.

This goes for Norway too, with some caveats. In some ways we have less rights and a more oppressive state. We have (at least) triple jeopardy. Double jeopardy is built into the system as a matter of course. Our jury system, which was instituted in 1887, works roughly like this. Defendants are first tried in Tingretten, which is a sort of kangaroo court with one judge and two semi-professional laymen who vote and produce a verdict which isn't taken very seriously by anyone (it scarcely even counts as jeopardy). Then if either party appeals, which is extremely common, the real trial is in Lagmannsretten with 10 jurors and 3 judges. At this point, a certain level of flagrant disrespect for jury nullification is built into the system. The matter of guilt is up to the jury of 10 peers, but if they vote to acquit and the 3 professional judges disagree (if they find it obvious that the defendant is technically guilty but the jury has decided to disregard the law -- the very definition of jury nullification), they can quash the verdict and order a new trial, subjecting the defendant to triple jeopardy. In the new trial there are only four laymen in addition to another three professional judges, and even here I am not sure if an acquittal is necessarily final. Thus there are some serious structural obstacles to jury nullification in Norway. Nonetheless, our jury system is still pretty strong, and it is important that we keep it that way. Ideally we should strengthen it, of course. The buck should stop with an acquittal in Lagmannsretten, after which there should be no way the defendant can be retried for the same crime. This only happens occasionally, however, so with respect to appeals and multiple jeopardy, I am about 70% pleased with the way it works now. We should also guarantee the right to a jury trial for all crimes, and not just crimes punishable by more than 6 years. We might also debate whether just 7 votes out of 10 jurors should really be sufficient to convict. (In the American system, all 12 have to agree. But on the other hand, their system has many other shortcomings including the governmental extortion that is plea bargaining, all kinds of unfair restrictions on what evidence is admissible including rape shield laws, and even ways to get around the double jeopardy rule simply by picking another name for the same alleged crime -- so I am not saying their system is better overall.)

In rape trials based on feminist corruption of the legal definition, jury nullification is in fact already happening. It just isn't recognized as such. The official propaganda has it that some flaws in the system must be preventing justice from being served. We are constantly told that the system needs to be reformed in various ways to convict more men, from the supposedly careless way rape accusations are initially handled by police to the pesky problem of juries refusing to get with the feminist program and convict. But indeed, the low conviction rate (or "high attrition rate," as feminists put it) in rape trials is proof that the system is working, at least to some extent. There is still some vestige of justice and sanity left. The people is protesting corrupt laws and odious feminist prosecutors by refusing to convict in many cases. And ironically, women jurors vote to acquit accused rapists more often than men do, according to one study. Yes, on rape juries, manginas run more rampant than feminists! The problem from an MRA perspective is state feminism, corrupt laws and the disrespect for the citizenry embodied by the weak position of the jury. And it keeps getting worse. Feminists are lobbying to abolish the jury altogether in rape trials, citing what is in fact jury nullification (and should be respected as such -- the proper course of action is to back off and reverse feminist rape law reform) as evidence that only professional feminist lawyercunts and manginas are fit to decide who is guilty of rape. When that happens, we won't have any nonviolent recourse against tyrannical feminist prosecutions, but we still do as of today, and we should avail ourselves of this opportunity for nonviolent activism while it lasts. If you ever serve on a jury, please don't let the feminists with their laws and judges cow you into voting for a guilty verdict if it goes against your conscience.

Which Men Does MRA Serve? Alphas or Betas?

Is the Men's Rights Movement only for betas? An article signed by four "masculinists" (of Maskulinist.no) in Morgenbladet, where I am also cited, raises the question of which group constitutes the Men's Movement, and I suppose it is easy to get the impression from a cursory look at MRA sites that we are all about betas. I guess I haven't been clear as to exactly who is included in our movement as I see it, so perhaps it is time to define MRA.

Men's Rights Activism is a backlash against feminism. Feminism is basically about restricting men’s access to women’s bodies by means of the police state, all while forcibly reaping the fruits of men's labor without having to put out any more than they feel like. MRA is the opposite. Succinctly put, MRActivism addresses how to get laid and what happens when you do. The former is perhaps best summed up in my “Rape is equality” post, and the latter includes criminal (and civil) sex accusations as well as anything to do with divorce, paternity fraud, child support and custody, etc. While how to get laid is by definition a beta and omega issue, what happens when you do is also highly applicable to alphas. Feminist corruption of justice has made sex extremely risky no matter how alpha you are. Alpha victims of feminist sex laws include Julian Assange, DSK, Silvio Berlusconi, Herman Cain, and Israeli ex-president Moshe Katshav, who is now in prison for false rape and sexual harassment. And that’s just to name a few recent examples off the top of my head. Even Bill Clinton and Al Gore almost ran afoul of feminist sex law, so clearly no man is too powerful to be a victim. There is also a plethora of recent examples here in Norway, where thousands of men criminalized by the new law against buying sex now are exposed by hackers after the media dug into a website where prostitutes advertise and found, unsurprisingly, that men in all kinds of positions were customers. I am linking to the complete user database including all phone numbers (but not the text messages between hookers and johns, which I do not possess because the hackers were too chickenshit to share them) in order to show all these men that the feminist police state is a very real personal threat against which we should all band together. This material alone could be used to at least triple the Norwegian prison population for a year if feminist prosecutors used it for all it is worth, but I guess it was too overwhelming to charge some 20,000 men all at once...

Of course, men always compete for women, with each man preferring to keep all the pussy for himself. Alphas and betas are not natural allies, and so far, hardly any alphas have come out in support of MRA. They probably don’t feel the need to yet. Life is generally good for alphas under feminism, but all it takes to ruin your life is a woman’s word. I believe all men ought to conspire against the feminist police state out of solidarity but also for their own good, and when that happens, feminism won't stand a chance. The hard part is convincing the alphas that supporting feminism is a bad idea, as most of them seem to be incapable of realizing this until it is too late. But they should. Even when I was most sexually frustrated, feminist sex laws and rape reform in particular always remained at the forefront of my mind and I was seething with hatred and murderous rage against the cops who enforce all the freshly minted feminist sex laws against men who do easily get laid. We are in this together, alphas and betas alike, and it is high time to fight the feminist police state. In fact, oppugning feminist jurisprudence is arguably more important than promoting sexual egalitarianism, since at the very least, men would be able to pay for sex without persecution.